Author: Mosse, David

Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Volume 12, Number 4, December 2006 , pp. 935-956(22)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract:

One legacy of Malinowski's ethnographic method is the separation of `field' and `desk'. What anthropologists know is inseparable from their relationship with those they study - the epistemology is relational - but ethnographic writing breaks fieldwork relations, cuts the network, and erects boundaries: it is necessarily anti-social. As anthropologists turn their interest in what people believe, say, and do (and the inconsistencies between these) to the inter-connected institutions that comprise the modern world, to policy and professional communities of which they may also be members, their method of entering and exiting social worlds becomes more difficult. Arguing for the particular importance of an ethnographic perspective on the practices of powerful institutions, this article uses recent research on international aid and development to show how influential informants object to ethnographic accounts, resist anthropological boundary-making, and attempt to unpack academic knowledge back into relationships.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2006.00371.x

Publication date: 2006-12-01

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Anthropology & Archeology
• By this author: Mosse, David

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers